This is a genuine not rhetorical question. I don’t know much about British politics but the statement that some shady elites are controlling the British through the BBC seems counterintuitive to me.
The BBC thing is much more subtle.
> "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor."
Plus ça change...
The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis.
Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually.
It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities.
BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.
Balancing hope, fear, and desperation requires permanent effort.
Why not? If it doesn't cost them much then why wouldn't they want this for the masses? They're still people and most people don't like it when others needlessly suffer.
In order to increase income from taxes, governments can usually most easily tax the middle class (provided middle class isn't too small of course).
And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts.
People dependant on the government will be more obedient civilians, so its likely many governments will want to move in this direction. Central Bank Digital Currencies will also give governments more control of people, so it will be the direction we'll be moving towards in the coming years.
On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare).
Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.
This sounds right, but the same issue of refusing services is just as valid (if not more valid) for private businesses. It would be a harder argument with respect to public healthcare because the first amendment is binding with respect to the government and not private companies. Said private companies and insurance companies can (and likely do) charge more because of things like vaccination.
The problem is not a matter of private vs public healthcare but of punishing violation of the first amendment and enforcing legislation that protects religious minorities from discrimination, especially on insurance companies.
The private sector is more unregulated than the public sector with regard to things like religious freedom. Corporate HR departments can get away with more coercion and subterfuge than the government, hence the current situation in the US where employers control freedom of speech and other things more thoroughly than the government ever could. It's far easier to exert power through the corporations than it is through the government
The world view is that public health care is actually a massive subsidy for corporations, who obviously benefit from a healthy (and educated) pool of workers.
That public health care is fought against in the US is more about the hideously large and inefficient health care juggernaut in the US that lobbies against the publics interest in their own favour. Forget the smokescreen that the US calls "socialism", the word has no effective meaning there other than an epithet.
Looking at this data, it seems like it pays almost 50% more than the next highest country (over 9k per capita, vs just under 6k).
This is how socialist politicians came in. Before the war socialists were the enemy, after the war they were the ones who had to fix the mess and stop communism.
So that they will have control of the healthcare system. Or lack thereof. "You missed crossing the T on page 1027-56, section 3 when filling out your submission to acquire cancer treatment form, and so we are rejecting your request at this time. Please fill out the form again and wait 6 weeks before re-submitting."
The more power politicians/elite have over the populace, the easier it is to control the populace. Right up until the riots.
Remember Menzies in Australia tried to ban the communist party by legislation and lost a referendum in 1951 on this issue (it passed in 3? states I think, but didn't obtain the supermajority necessary)
He was also a central figure for one of the two major parties (Liberal - basically our closest equivalent to the American Republican party).
It would be fascinating to hear his opinion on where the Liberal party is today. That said, I think both major parties are generally shit (Broadly speaking, one works in the best interests of corporations, and the other just doesn't do much of anything)
That guy? Calling him great is controversial to say the least.
Please point out a BBC/ABC influence operation that is government backed in the past 3 decades.
CIA learned the value of narrative formation from the BBC